Re[3]: [at-l] Ad Policy/ R&R WF

[Bob Cummings <ellen@clinic.net> (Bob Cummings)]

Jim asked some useful questions, so I'm not going to abbreviate them. My replies are started with ***

Point 1 - The AT IS a "civilized walk".  If you don't believe that then we
need to discuss it. There are most of 2000 miles of trail in Pennsylvania 
alone that are far wilder than the AT, to say nothing of the Western long 
distance trails.  Fact is that many of those parallel roads WERE the AT at 
one time - and that the Trail was much more interesting when that was so.  
2000+ miles of "long green tunnel" can be awfully damn boring at times.

*** The trail is not as wild as some of us might like, but it's the only one that goes 2,000 miles
so some of us will always attempt to make it as wild as possible.

Point 2 - The ATC's "wishy-washiness" may depend on your viewpoint - and on 
your knowledge (or lack thereof) about their past actions.  In spite of your 
perception of "uniform wisdom", in concert with the NPS and USFS, they've 
conducted a number of "negotiations" in bad faith, using hardball tactics 
against people who should have been (and many times originally were) friends 
of the Trail and of the hikers.  That makes enemies - unnecessarily.  And 
people who make enemies of those who should be friends - even (or maybe 
especially) in the name of "preserving the Trail" - are fools and are no 
friends of either the Trail or the hikers. Just how do you think the "DMZ" 
came to be?  And how many centuries will it take for the bitterness about 
SNP to be healed?

***I can't answer unspecified charges. But basically, ATC has only the powers of persuasion. The
trail for the most part is owned by government authorities. ATC has the option of going along with
the landowners, opposing the landowners or supporting the landowners. Send some specifics and I
might be able to respond to specific cases.

Don't make the mistake of believing that I'm in favor of
"commercialization".  My inclination runs more toward less shelters, fewer 
outhouses, less (no?) signs, less maintenance and the elimination of many 
Trail crews.  I'm also a pragmatist - and it ain't gonna happen.  The ATC is 
a bureaucracy - and it has all the tendencies and problems that accompany 
such organizations - including a need to perpetuate itself by inventing new 
and wonderful definitions of it's raison d'etre.

***We are all familiar with the tendencies of bureaucracies, but as such goes, ATC is pretty small.
Those with decision making powers probably number about 5. The rest are clerks and peons. I've known
some of the decision makes for 30 years. Others I've met and talked with casually, and followed
their wishy-washy ways. I think shelters will be considered an anachronism in a decade or two.
Everyone has to carry shelter anyway. But I think privies are essential for health, aesthetic and
environmental reasons, though of course they make the trail less wild.

Point 3 - Who ever told you why people go for a walk in the woods?  Have you 
ever asked them? Why in the world would you think that I go for the same 
reasons you do?  Why would you think everyone else (or even anyone else) 
goes for the same reasons we do?

*** Well, I've been walking in the woods for six decades. That's why Wildbill thinks I'm a
(something, I forget the details) old man. During that time I've met and observed quite a few hikers
and have gained some insight into what a few of them hike for. Also some
people think I've helped protect some of the trail in the interest of preserving its wild character.
If so, I guess some might think (probably mistakenly) that my views ought at least be listened to,
if not acted upon.

If you tire of that mantra, then I've gotta believe that you may not really 
understand what thruhiking is about.  I know - I've said I think of you as a 
thruhiker - but being a thruhiker doesn't automatically mean that one 
understands all the ramifications of what it's about.  I don't - Warren 
Doyle doesn't - Baltimore Jack doesn't - WF certainly doesn't - why should 
you?

*** Who knows? Maybe I don't. But it is human nature to think that what we believe is true. In any
case, I simply express my views. I continue to think that dialogue between folks with conflicting
views about things they think important can lead to wise decisions. YMMV

The fact that people go out there for different reasons (and accept no crap 
about it) is no bar to discussion of "what the trail is or ought to be".  
What that "mantra"  DOES mean is that neither you nor anyone else has either 
right or reason to tell me why I should be out there, what I should get out 
of the experience or how I should do it.  And that you may get more 
disagreement than you'd like. And that your viewpoint may not prevail.  Mine 
doesn't always - why should yours?  It also means that you, as well as 
everyone else here, has the right?/responsibility?/opportunity? to tell it 
the way you see it.  And that your opinion is as valid as anyone elses, 
provided you've got the experience and knowledge to back it up.

*** I think of it as a mantra, because it seems to be used in an attempt to shut up those with
different opinions. Informed debate among trail lovers will determine what the future holds for this
trail. I oppose everything that I think attempts to stifle that debate. Because without debate the
trail ultimately will tend to sort of drift in directions that strike me as harmful. That may happen
anyway (probably will happen). But those of us willing to put up with the ignorance of Sloetoes will
continue to try anyway.

Frankly, I sometimes get the idea that your version of "rational discussion" 
means that you expect ultimate universal agreement on the validity of your 
ideas. And that your version of "serious discussion" means discussion of 
specific subjects that are of interest to you, but that discussion of  any 
other topic falls under the heading of "chit-chat" and is inconsequential.  
I'd like to be wrong about that, but that's what I'm hearing.  Tell me I'm 
wrong, Bob - I'm listening.

***I tend only to express opinions that I think are valid. Having dealt with these matters for a
long time (six decades remember) I'm well aware that usually I lose. Though occasionally opponents
have told me when it's too late that they are sorry they won.

I'll even give you an example -- a few weeks ago there was a short 
discussion about hiking at high altitude.  And some people were surprised 
that AMS can occur at any elevation over 5000 ft.  Did you know that many AT 
hikers (not just thruhikers) experience symptoms of AMS - especially in 
North Carolina and Hew Hampshire?  And that most of them don't understand 
what's happening to them - and most often deny it?  Do you understand that 
that's a "serious discussion" - that it can affect peoples hikes and health 
- and their lives?

*** yes.

How about the "sexual threat" thread?  Was that a "serious discussion"? It 
was to some people.

*** yes

Why is a baby not "serious"?  Or the quit-smoking hike? Or the Wanchor/Felix 
reports?  Or --- pick your own poison.

***No reason. Did I ever say they weren't. I joined in most of the discussions you site.

I've gotten really tired of the continuing litany that one thing or another 
is "a way to prevent rational discussion of what the trail is or ought to 
be". And of the "this originates from an accepted unwritten rule to chase 
serious topics off the board".

*** Having spent a couple of years with Wingfoot, I thought I would never again be involved in a
debate so rigidly controlled. I find some attempt to make the list equally controlled, though they
use different and in some ways more effective tactics.

If it's not important to you, if you don't consider the topic to be serious, 
that's fine - no one said it had to be so for you.  There are a lot of 
topics that I either have no interest in discussing - or no time to get 
involved with.  But a lot of this stuff IS important to other people, so can 
the complaints. The list will talk about those things that are important 
(and "serious") to those who live here.  If you have something "serious" to 
talk about, then trot it out and lets play with it.  But if, in your 
opinion,  what I talk about isn't "serious" enough to be worth your time, 
that's your problem, not mine - and your delete key works as well as mine 
does.

*** I couldn't agree more. I just don't like the attempts to belittle inarticulate people with
unpopular ideas. Several members of the list know the code words of contempt, that will draw out the
cheers from others who don't seem to recognize that they are being manipulated.

Walk softly,

*** I will. And you to.

Weary